George.I guess he didnt have to. I wldnt have done if i were He! But, "God so loved the world He gave His Only Son etc..." Apparently God actually loves us and we are important enough for Him to take a lot of trouble to rescue.I simply cannot see Alec's point that Adam had to sin in order for me to sin and need my sins forgiven. We are by Nature evolved beings. We are born into this world like any other animal and we leave it like any other animal. But being Human we are 'in the image of God'. Now i do not really know what that means (and no body else does either), but it does suggest to me We have the potential to relate to God. We behave like evolved beings (i.e. we are extremely self interested). Call that sin if you like. Xtians in my experience are indistinguishable from non-xtians in that regard (except it is often dressed up in self-righteousness). But to commune with God we need our sins forgiven. I dont need a literal Adam, but i really do need a literal Saviour. Fortunately for us all, God appears to be wonderfully generous. I am very grateful.

Andrea:The Red Sea had dried out till 3Myr ago when the land bridge cutting off the Red Sea from the Indian Ocean was breached. The inundation was catastrphic hence evidence for large scale water flow (at the Gulf of Suez). (There is a v thick salt layer beneath the last 3Myr of sediments- except along the central section which has opened by sea floor spreading during the last 3Myr). Similarly the whole of the Med Sea was dried out till 5Myr ago. Again there is a v thick salt layer beneath the last 5Myr of sediment accumulation. Of considerable interest the Black Sea was dried out till recently ( a few 1000 yrs) until it was inundated catastrophically from the Med Ocean. This event occurred in human history and that i suspect is a good candidate for Noah's flood. Anyone living in the Black Sea before the flood wld have believed the whole Earth had flooded. Look at the size of the Black Sea on the map.

We can see the evidence of different layers having built up in various places but we cannot make assertions of how it happened when it was so far back in history. We can only presume and have to allow for the possibility that these assumptions may be far out in accuracy.

I have no reason to doubt what you say about the Black Sea but we already know about coastal erosion and rising sea levels so there are a few reasons why that could have happened. However, that is quite different to the flood where even the highest mountains were covered and areas which were nowhere near the sea. Where would the water have come from? The following link gives information about expeditions to the area concerned and reports what is thought to perhaps be the remains of the Ark at a height of 6,300 feet above sea level. There is no way that the Ark could have landed there without very high levels of water to carry it over what is, after all, a mountain range. Genesis 7v20 confirms this, "covered the mountains by over 20 feet."

Duncan,You wrote: “I am not a 'sinner' because of anything Adam did, but cos that's what i am (we are responsible for what we are not for what anyone else was or is).” and “I simply cannot see Alec's point that Adam had to sin in order for me to sin.”

1. Have a look at Rom 5:19.

2. It is because Adam represented the whole of mankind that the justice of God permits the same principle to operate in order for Christ to represent His people and make atonement for their sin – same verse Rom 5:19. The devils had no such arrangement Heb 2;16, and they have no saviour.

Paul,

The link to Stephen Hawkings opinion that the laws of physics can create multiple universes out of nothing simply takes the question further back.

Where did the laws of gravity and of physics come from? Are they eternal and immutable...and infinite... a bit like ... God?

He probably has but will stick to what he want to believe anyway. A bit like most people, really.

Duncan Tamsett (Guest)

06/09/2010 12:27

Duane Gish is a propagandist. He does not present arguement that shd be taken seriously by anyone. Only non Scientists will be impressed. I am not a Cosmologist by background but even i know enough to know Gish is talking nonsense with his usual bluster and show of authority. Cosmologists DO NOT expect the Universe to be uniform. The early measurements of the CBR (Cosmic Backgrounf Radiation) surprised them (cosmologists) by being SO uniform. They fully expected the early universe expressed in the MBR to show signs of clumpiness and in fact the COBE project was instigated to search for evidence of variation in the CBR. The 1st COBE project indeed found evidence for clumpiness in the early universe and the more recent results from the 2nd COBE experiment have better resolved the clumps. Gish creates impressions that are totally false for the sake of six day creationist propaganda. Please do not be fooled.

No body shd be disturbed by anything Hawkins says. 1st his actual words are very badly misrepresented in the press. 2nd if Hawkins is going to remain true to Science he shd know better than to presume to say anything at all about God for God is beyong the reach of Science (no hypothesis made about God can be tested!).

I know that people find Gish irritating and difficult to have a dialogue with but what matters most it whether or not what he says is true or false (and the same obviously applies to his critics). I have no idea if what he says in this article is valid and neither do I know if the criticisms of him were valid too. I am not a scientist and this is where the scientific fraternity hold their trump card. The average man in the street does not have the knowledge to challenge at a scientific level but Gish does.

I'm sure most of us just want to know the truth here and would appreciate an open and honest debate between opposing sides to establish why they feel so differently when confronted by these theories. I'm not convinced that the majority is always right, especially when it is just a theory at the heart of the matter.

I'm not at all disturbed by what Stephen Hawkins says. He is no more or less valid than anyone else and it is simply his opinion but he has a wide audience to which to put it and therefore opens himself up to criticism from those who disagree.

I've no interest in defending Gish purely because I agree with his belief in creation but I would like to know if his scientific arguments are valid.

Duncan Tamsett (Guest)

06/09/2010 14:11

Andrea:The name 'The Institute For Creation Research' tells you all you need to know! You CANNOT (forgive arrogance) name your Research Institute after the Conclusion you are going to come to, and imagine that what you are doing is Science. A Scientist MUST allow that a hypothesis will be proved wrong. The name of the 'The Institute' tells you that it is in reality 'For Pseudo-Scientifically Based Creationist Propaganda'. Hawking (sorry, i mis-spelt in my last) and his kind, if they ever venture into the ICR website will do so only for a good laugh.

I feel that the name of the institute is irrelevant. and no more worthy of criticism than established Atheist or Evolution Societies. Are any of them going to reject the very core of their beliefs? I doubt it. Any group, Creationist or Scientific would like us to believe that they are entirely neutral and looking only for scientific fact but human nature makes us decide what we believe and then set out to have it confirmed. The only problem here is that evolution can never be proved as it involves massive changes over vast periods long in the past and God cannot be proved either as we only find Him by looking with our hearts rather than our eyes.

I would suggest that anyone who ventures into the opposing groups' websites 'purely for a laugh' has clearly already made up their mind already.